Wayne, I'm supposed to be studying math right now, and don't have time to devote to each of your comments here - will try to get to them as time goes on here. Again, you said "you all run" in your comment - and I don't know if that means me or not - you continually throw that out there, and then come back and say, oh, not you... so impossible to ever know.
I'll answer one thing of yours quickly, and ask you one question on your assessments:
I've posted my assessment of his qualifications multiple times in this forum, and it's always forgotten, either in hope or hoping it's never mentioned again, I guess. So, what's the point? I think he is a smart, successful, communicative, visionary leader that has shown a hard working methodology and vigor while in office. He is a Constitutional scholar and received many accolades on his performance and intelligence while in school.
? Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law School, elected President of Law Review.
? State Senator for 8 years
? Chairman of Health and Human Services Committee
? U.S. Senator for 4 Years (give or take, of course was campaigning for Pres for 2 or so)
? Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
? Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs
? Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
? Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
? Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
So, from 10 to 12 years of actual legislative experience, member or chairman of five diverse committees, with that experience giving him a broad base and understanding of much of the country's issues. Constitutional scholar, to the point of being senior lecturer on the Constitution and highly prestigious University of Chicago. As well-versed as virtually any Presidential hopeful in history to carry out the responsibilities of upholding the Constitution - a role of the President. Actual experience in state and national legislatures for many years, with committee responsibilities. Excellent orator, communicator, personable, and more than able to handle the personal and professional requirements of representing the country personally in public situations.
There's a few. Pretty good credentials. Of course, he really didn't lead multiple failed businesses or bag out of national guard duty to "build a resume" or things like that, but, one can't do EVERYTHING, I guess.
Now, question for you: Do you really think the Massachusetts race was because of Obama, or more because of the two presented candidates for the election and how they ran their campaigns? I think most realists understand how weak the dem candidate and her campaign was, and how strong the republican candidate was, but maybe you think it's more the other way. Honestly, what do you think? And, what about the democratic victories that you never talk about in the recent past election cycle, that showed more dems gaining positions than republicans? What does that mean?
arameter parameter="dart.server" /--><!-- END: Module - Advert:Top -->
